CCPR/C/81/D/962/2001 Page 5 Committee’s decision on admissibility 4.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 4.2 In accordance with article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same question is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 4.3 In the light of the author’s arguments concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the complete lack of cooperation from the State party, the Committee considers that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol are not an impediment to examination of the communication. 4.4 The Committee considers that the author’s complaint that the facts as submitted constitute a violation of articles 14, paragraph 3; and 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant has not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.5 The Committee considers that, in the absence of any information from the State party, the complaints submitted by the author may raise issues under articles 6, paragraph 1, 7; 9, paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5; 10, paragraph 1, and 23, paragraph 1 and should therefore be examined as to the merits. Examination of the merits 5.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. It notes that the State party has not, despite the reminders sent to it, provided any replies on either the admissibility or the merits of the communication. The Committee notes that, under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, a State party is under an obligation to cooperate by submitting to it written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and indicating the measures, if any, that may have been taken to remedy the situation. As the State party has failed to cooperate in that regard, the Committee had no choice but to give the author’s allegations their full weight insofar as they have been substantiated. 5.2 With regard to the complaint of a violation of article 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, of the Covenant, the Committee notes the author’s statement that no warrant was issued for his arrest and that he was taken to the Gemena military camp under false pretences. Mr. Mulezi also maintains that he was arbitrarily detained without charge from 27 December 1997 onwards, first at Gemena, for two weeks, and then at the Mbandaka military camp, for 16 months. It is clear from the author’s statements that he was unable to appeal to a court for a prompt determination of the lawfulness of his detention. The Committee considers that these statements, which the State party has not contested and which the author has sufficiently substantiated, warrant the finding that there has been a violation of